MONTREAL — He knows the truth about a dirty cop. She can name a doctor who'll happily take cash from a desperate patient seeking a speedy referral.

Whistleblowers have the dirt on kickbacks and coverups, cavalier public spending and sleazy tricks on the campaign trail.

If only they would talk.

"It would be good if everyone was willing to come forward," said David Hutton, executive director of Federal Accountability Initiative for Reform (FAIR), which monitors cases involving whistleblowers in the federal public service. "Research consistently shows that the best way to find out about fraud and wrongdoing within an organization is through employees. You have law enforcement that comes essentially free. It's kind of a no-brainer."

If only more people felt free to talk without threat of committing career hara-kiri, that internal damnation of being sidelined or badmouthed by bosses and co-workers. Governments would be cleaner. Overpasses might not fall down.

So why don't we show whistleblowers more respect? Why do politicians, public agencies and businesses still make it so difficult, damaging and emotionally draining for people who follow their consciences and speak up about wrongdoing?

Not only are there no incentives for right-minded citizens in most parts of this country to do the right thing. There are no consequences for those who punish the brave souls who do come forward.

Surveys show employees in the civil service remain skittish about speaking out, fearful they'll be punished by their bosses or shunned by their peers — what Hutton calls the "head on a stake" approach. "The point is to make an example of them, so they run out of resources, run up legal bills by isolating and demoralizing them."

Arne Hintz is a post-doctoral research fellow in the art history and communication studies department at McGill University in Montreal, where he is co-editing a book on the WikiLeaks case scheduled for publication later this year. He said the whistleblower often "plays the game" and keeps quiet about injustices and criminal activity in the workplace until his conscience gets the better of him.

"In most cases, the lack of anonymity means that they will face repercussions, which may include mobbing and firing, and which can lead to serious — not the least — psychological problems. The seriousness of the repercussions (which often appears out of proportion to the initial act of whistle-blowing) has the purpose of discouraging similar acts by potential whistleblowers."

"You can be a whistleblower if you aren't worried about retaliation," says Steven Appelbaum, a management professor at the John Molson School of Business at Concordia University in Montreal who has studied the implications of corporate whistle-blowing. "It's fine if you think about the moment and doing the right thing instead of your own future and long-term prospects; if you believe you will get another job, that you'll survive."

Last month, the head of Quebec's anti-corruption commission, Justice France Charbonneau, issued an appeal for Quebecers to reveal what they know about criminal activity involving the construction industry and government, hospitals, school boards and para-public institutions. The commission has set up a toll-free hotline and is offering to protect sources from harm or retribution.

Yet by this week, at least seven emails sent to the commission, reportedly ripe with detail about unsavoury transactions involving a construction company and a Montreal city official, had already been hacked, raising doubts about the commission's ability to keep that promise of confidentiality in the age of WikiLeaks and Anonymous.

Last Wednesday, Montreal Police Chief Marc Parent told a parliamentary committee the force needs to be more open to public scrutiny and input, citing a "perception of a lack of transparency." Yet when former detective sergeant Ian Davidson committed suicide in January after reports alleging he had tried to sell police secrets to the mob, the Surete du Quebec — the provincial police — launched a probe to find out who leaked the information to the media.

The Surete has already suspended one detective for divulging sensitive information in the case of Paul Laplante, who also took his own life after being arrested for the murder of his wife, Diane Gregoire, prompting charges by the federation representing Quebec journalists of "a witch hunt."

After the sponsorship scandal in 2007, Stephen Harper's Conservative government promised it would make it easier for federal employees to blow the whistle when they uncovered corrupt or unethical conduct.

Instead, Christine Ouimet, Canada's first public integrity commissioner, resigned with a hefty severance package in December 2010, three years into her seven-year term. Her departure came days before a scathing report by then auditor general Sheila Fraser who said Ouimet, the senior bureaucrat responsible for protecting whistleblowers, had reigned over a hostile and hellish workplace where those who questioned her were subject to punishment and reprisals.

Of the 228 cases filed during Ouimet's mandate on behalf of federal employees who said they had been punished for speaking out on matters of principle, only seven investigations were launched and not a single case of wrongdoing was identified.

Little progress appeared to have been made in the 14 months since Mario Dion replaced Ouimet, until Thursday when Dion released a report on a civil servant — described as an "autocrat" — who was found guilty of "gross mismanagement," by appointing a close friend to a vacant position and billing taxpayers for, among other things, personal massages and flat-screen televisions.

The report from Dion found that many employees under the Human Resources and Skills Development Canada manager were concerned about coming forward for fear that in the small community where they worked, "retaliation might spread outside the office and affect their family members."

But a worker came forward in 2010 with anecdotal reports of wrongdoing by the middle manager, as well as receipts and paperwork to show misspending, Dion said.

It was the first time the four-year-old office has found any case of wrongdoing in the public service.

But it will not be the last. Dion said he expects his office to provide more reports to Parliament by the end of the year. The office currently has 37 investigations on the go.

"This is not the smallest or the largest," Dion said of the case made public Thursday. "I hope this report will be a clear indication that if you see wrongdoing, you can come forward in confidence."

Still, in a report prepared for the integrity commissioner last month, federal employees expressed fear of reprisals, a lack of anonymity and the risk of being ostracized by colleagues. "Most employees see reprisals for disclosing wrongdoing as a real possibility, primarily because of the subtle form (reprisals) can take," cautioned the report.

Hintz cites recent efforts by countries such as Iceland and Germany to protect whistleblowers. He said WikiLeaks has attempted to tackle the anonymity problem by providing a secure place that protects the whistleblower from being identified. "Many media organizations, such as Al Jazeera and the New York Times, have established anonymous 'drop-boxes' that have served the same purpose and have already led to significant revelations."

But risks still arise, especially when the whistleblower feels the need to talk to friends or co-workers.

Hintz points to the experience of Bradley Manning, the alleged WikiLeaks whistleblower who was nabbed after he revealed his identity to a hacker via an online chat.

"The Bradley Manning case also shows the severity of the repercussions," Hintz said. "He has now been imprisoned for almost two years under conditions which have been described by the United Nations as torture. He is facing life in prison for allegedly handing over documents to which large numbers of U.S. personnel (apparently more than two million) had access."

Appelbaum argues that some people will come forward no matter the risks, exhibiting a type of "organizational citizenship behaviour" that can be explained in two ways. "Either they are very ethical — 'I don't want to get caught involved in something unethical,' or they are concerned about the fallout — 'If I blow the whistle, will I get fired? If I don't and the wrongdoing is discovered, am I complicit?' "

Appelbaum suggests employees prepared to spill have a deep understanding of workplace ethos and the characters he or she is up against.

"It helps to know whether the company is basically ethical and the people doing bad stuff are rogues, or whether it is ingrained in the culture," he said. "The minute someone says, 'don't worry about it,' I always worry about it."

"Wrongdoers can often hijack the system, using human resources to punish the whistleblower," said Hutton. "A 20- or 30-year stellar record file will go missing, replaced with bogus complaints. Superiors will do what they can to denigrate them and make them appear to be irresponsible malcontents."

One needs only look at recent investigations in Quebec into alleged kickbacks in the construction industry to see what's at stake, Hutton said.

"If you believe what (former Montreal police chief and corruption investigator) Jacques Duchesneau said, what's on the line in the corruption inquiry is shutting down a multibillion-dollar industry which has ties in business and government — and which can bump people off."